Standing Committee A

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Clause 8 - Combination of Gibraltar with existing electoral region

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in
clause 8, page 5, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 10,'.
 Clause 8 is extremely important. It reads: 
''Gibraltar is to be combined with an existing electoral region in England and Wales to form a new electoral region (''the combined region'') for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections taking place after 1st April 2004.''
 Inserting the phrase ''Subject to section 10'' at the beginning of that clause draws attention to the provisions of clause 10. Subject to my attempts to have him substituted by the Secretary of State, even more so after yesterday's debate on criminal justice, under clause 10 
''The Lord Chancellor may by order . . . specify the existing electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar to form the combined region; and . . . make provision establishing the combined region.''
 That is the essence of the point that I want to make and I have quite a lot to say about the manner in which clauses 10 and 11 and the supplementary arrangements set up under clause 12 will interact. In a nutshell, the effect of this apparently innocuous amendment would be to provide a more efficacious manner in which to combine Gibraltar with the existing electoral region. 
 One thing that has come to my notice has caused me a great deal of concern and I ask the Minister to give the House of Commons, let alone the Committee, an explanation. According to the reports—this may be of some satisfaction to the Government qua Government—up until June 2002 when the Home Office was dealing with the matter, things were proceeding in an extremely orderly fashion. Admittedly, there were serious disputes about the question of a referendum. Foreign Office Ministers were making all sorts of statements and there were counter-statements from Gibraltar. We know the history of that. The bottom line is that it was about whether the people of Gibraltar should be allowed to have their say on the extremely vexed question of relations with Spain. 
 I am not privy to what goes on behind the scenes in the Government; I can only put the most perceptive interpretation on it that I can, based on the information that I receive. The Minister may be able to explain why, when the Lord Chancellor's Department took over the arrangements, everything suddenly went completely off course, by which I mean that there was no further consultation. The Minister may say that she and the Minister for Europe had 
 meetings in December, but despite everything that the Government have said about pre-legislative scrutiny, the reality is that, at that point, everything went silent. There was no further consultation and, as I understand it, Gibraltar was not consulted about the proposals in the Bill at all. That seems unbelievable. 
 We are talking about citizens who will be voting in a combined region and whose democratic rights will be affected by the manner in which the arrangements operate. There is an established system of government in Gibraltar through the House of Assembly. There is a vast tradition of loyalty to this country, extending back to Rooke's famous taking of Gibraltar in 1702—I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Paul Farrelly: 1704.

William Cash: 1704—the same year as Blenheim.
 The fact is that, against that background, the people of Gibraltar, the Chief Minister and others in that territory are simply being snubbed—that is the only word that one can use. Let us imagine that a Bill was introduced that affected people in a similar fashion, but that was outside the domain of the foreign policy questions tied up with Gibraltar and Spain. I would imagine that if there were already an established electorate and an established form of government, it would be inconceivable for there to be no discussions. I may be entirely wrong: that may be how things have been going on for centuries. 
 I await with interest what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has to say, but first let me give a direct example. Were not the ex-colonies, when they were brought to independence with the wind of change, consulted extensively about the manner in which they were to be governed? I expect the answer to be yes. I think it inconceivable that they were suddenly presented with a Bill that said, ''This is the way, and you're going to have to accept it.'' 
 There is an important constitutional question in this regard, because after all the Lord Chancellor has been given, or has taken to himself—I am not quite sure about the relationship between master and pupil in these matters—a huge number of additional responsibilities relating to constitutional affairs. If he falls at the first hurdle, which is to consult properly people whose democratic rights are affected, that is just another accumulated mortal sin.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman: he raises an important point and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about the lack of consultation between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Government of Gibraltar. He may be interested to know that there were no consultations with that Government before the beginning of last year, either. That is outlined in a memorandum from Mr. Caruana to the Foreign Affairs Committee that is included in its first report of the Session 2001–02, which states:
''No proposals have yet been put to the Gibraltar Government as to the manner and timing of the enfranchisement.''
 There was a very short window of opportunity for the Gibraltar Government to comment.

William Cash: Without disrespect to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I must say that there seems to be symmetry in our approach to these seminal questions. We look at what is happening and why and arrive at a similar conclusion about the manner in which these constitutional issues are dealt with. I am most grateful to him for drawing attention to the matter, as I did not appreciate that the situation was so bad. As I said on Second Reading, it raises all sorts of questions about the panjandrums of the 21st century, who are very ready to criticise the United Kingdom's conduct in the 19th century and before. The Committee will have heard of Niall Ferguson's book, which is recommended reading for many people. Treating the people of Gibraltar, and the elected Government and Chief Minister in this manner is inexcusable.
 People outside this Room will be more than interested to know the Minister's response. The Minister has a way of not replying to any of my questions. She has a brief, which she sticks to religiously, but there are some important questions that need answers. They must not be ignored because we are in the confines of this Committee. These are important matters that affect the manner in which the Government treat the people of Gibraltar. Some prominent, distinguished and vociferous members of the hon. Lady's party feel intensely about Gibraltar. They should hear the truth about what happened and we will press for that so that the situation can be remedied. 
 I made a similar point at the start of our proceedings when it appeared that the Electoral Commission had not been consulted on the Bill's proposals on boundary commissions and so on. The lack of consultation is astonishing coming from a Government who apparently put such a high premium on pre-legislative scrutiny, the openness of government and freedom of information. By any standards, there is a whiff of hypocrisy about it. I should like answers to my questions. 
 Against that background, we have an indication of the rationale and the thinking behind the Government's authoritarian approach. The Minister may say that the Government are doing Gibraltar a great service and providing them with the opportunity to vote in elections for the European Parliament. There are other territories whose view would be that if they were to allow themselves to be drawn into elections, other things might follow that they would find disagreeable. I refer in general terms to the imperial ambitions of the European Commission and all that goes with the Convention and so on. I have already made the point in this Committee, in the Standing Committee on the Convention, on the Floor of the House and in the Scrutiny Committee that I have reason to believe from documents that I have seen that places such as Gibraltar, not to mention the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, are unquestionably in the sights of the European Union's imperial adjutants. I have seen provisions that clearly show that, despite superficial protestations that it will not happen or even that they could not do anything about it, they will be swept into a broader European Union 
 without the necessary consultation and on a similar basis to what is taking place here. That is the problem. 
 The Denise Matthews case was the real reason why all this happened. If the Minister says that the hon. Gentleman should not speak about that case, because it was his Government who declined to do the right thing at the time and give her a vote, I agree. There is no virtue in trying to cover up past mistakes, of which there have been many. Indeed, all parties have made mistakes over an extended period. The European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the United Kingdom's failure to enfranchise Gibraltar for elections to the European Parliament constituted a violation of article 3 of the second protocol was about one essential point—that article 3 requires elections to be by universal suffrage. 
 As I said on Second Reading, the Prime Minister no doubt found himself between the Rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there is his so-called visionary attitude towards European integration, which he said only at the beginning of January was political, as if it could ever have been anything else. I should love to be able to enlarge on that, Mr. Cook, but I shall not do so. On the other hand, there is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that electors in Gibraltar had an absolute right to be combined with the United Kingdom for the purpose of the European elections. There is an apparent element of contradiction there. In view of the way in which those discussions went and the background to the referendum dispute, when 98 or 99 per cent. of the people of Gibraltar expressed their views on a referendum, it would not be helpful or wise for this or any Minister, or any member of the Committee, assuming that it was possible to stir them from their silence, to suggest that the Government had somehow done the people of Gibraltar a good turn. They have not. In those circumstances it will be more than interesting to hear what the Minister says about the way in which all that happened.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I seek your guidance. The comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the amendment have gone fairly wide.

Frank Cook: I have allowed that.

David Heath: I just want an indication of whether you intend to have a debate on clause stand part, Mr. Cook, in which case I shall sit down and allow the Minister to reply, or whether you would wish a wider debate to take place on this group of amendments.

Frank Cook: I have been lenient so far in order to allow the hon. Member for Stone to explain fully and comprehensively the point that he sought to explore. He has certainly been allowed to do that and he came close to the mark on more than one occasion. It would not be in my mind to permit a clause stand part debate after such a discussion, so if the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wishes to take the Floor, he may do so.

William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook, I need to know how the Minister will respond. If I wait till clause stand part, that will be too late.

Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman has moved an amendment, which I am about to put to the Committee. I have already said that, in view of the length and range of his introduction to that amendment, I do not intend to allow a clause stand part debate. He will, I am sure, have the opportunity to listen to the Minister and to come back into the debate, as he invariably does.

David Heath: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Cook. I hope that I have not caused difficulties elsewhere by having sought that guidance.
 The amendment seeks to put clause 8 in the context of clause 10. I should like to associate myself with some of the comments that the hon. Member for Stone made in deploring what appears to be a lack of consultation with the Government of Gibraltar on such matters. I must say that I find the Government's position on the enfranchisement of Gibraltar inexplicable. Year after year after year, since the Matthews judgment, they have waited to do anything at all. They first declared that Spain had an absolute veto on the constitutional change, then had second thoughts and declared that Spain did not have such a veto. All the while, they could have been talking to the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly in Gibraltar about how enfranchisement could take place, but they failed to do so. 
 That displays an attitude to the overseas territories that, I am afraid, is pervasive across the Government. I do not think that that helps our relationship with the dependent territories, as they were formerly called, which rely on the United Kingdom Government for overseas relations and much domestic legislation. Having said that, it is important to understand the Government's thinking on enfranchisement. The Bill contains a very limited provision and the amendment is of limited scope, but following Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to write to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) explaining the differences that the Department recognises between Gibraltar's position and that of the other Crown territories in that regard. 
 I should be most grateful if the Minister could provide me with a note, from her Department or from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on the perceived differences between the position of Gibraltar, as a territory in the European Union that is justified in wanting to ensure representation in the European Parliament, and the analogous territories of other member states. I am thinking of the Départements et Territoires d'Outre-Mer, where the position is clear, the Faroe Islands, where it is perhaps less clear, Greenland, which had an MEP until it chose by referendum to leave the territory of the European Union in 1985, the Netherlands Antilles, Aruba and a country that is now seeking re-admission to the European Union—Malta, which at the time of its independence in 1955 was offered three MPs in the Westminster Parliament. That might be held to have set a precedent for the future representation of Gibraltar, were the Government minded to consider that. 
 A short note setting out the Government's understanding of the constitutional differences between those areas would be of great help in understanding clause 8 and the amendment to relate that to clause 10. We would all then be aware of the Government's thinking. I state plainly my view that clause 8 should go further in providing for the representation of Gibraltar in the UK legislature. The reform of the House of Lords may provide such an opportunity and we can return to the matter at that point. The issue is beyond the scope of the Bill, which is why we cannot debate it further or put down appropriate amendments at this stage. 
 It would be helpful to know the Government's position. Clearly they have set their mind against the idea, but I remind the Minister that the people of Gibraltar have made it very plain that they will reject a conjunction of administrative arrangements without a conjunction of political arrangements. There can be an integration of both, but there cannot be an integration of one without the other. If that is to be the future status of Gibraltar and if we are to see a closer rather than a more distant tie between it and the UK, implicit in the arrangements must be an enhanced representation of the people of Gibraltar within the European Parliament and the UK legislature.

Yvette Cooper: The amendment would make clause 8 subject to the order in clause 10. That is slightly odd because clause 8 sets out a principle; it does not set out any of the detail of the implementation. The clause sets out the very clear principle that Gibraltar should get the vote as part of an existing electoral region. It is right that that should be in primary legislation and not subject to an order because it is effectively the key principle of this part of the Bill. It implements the UK's obligations as a result of the judgment in the case of Matthews v. UK. There is no realistic alternative to combining Gibraltar with an existing region because the size of Gibraltar, which has an electorate of about 20,000 people, compared with regions that have electorates of several million, means that it would be inappropriate for it to have a region of its own; we have to combine Gibraltar with an existing region.
 The principle is straightforward and we should discuss it as part of the process of going through the Bill in Committee rather than make it subject to a future order. The order deals with the question of which existing electoral region is to be combined with Gibraltar. Provision is also made for further detailed amendments to electoral law in order to make the election fair and capable of working in practice. The principle is straightforward and should be embedded in primary legislation. 
 Opposition Members have raised concerns about the consultation of the Government of Gibraltar. I will set out what has taken place. Of course the views of Gibraltar must be incorporated in the process and I will return to that point in more detail in relation to other amendments. It is not the case that there has not been consultation with Gibraltar; on the contrary, there has been extensive discussion with Gibraltar over a long period. The Home Office dealt with the issue 
 until June 2001, not until June 2002, as the hon. Member for Stone claimed. In June 2001 the issue passed to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in May 2002 it passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Consultation and discussions took place under each of those Departments. Officials met the Government of Gibraltar in January and June 2002, wrote to them again in April and November 2002 and met them again in December 2002. 
 Extensive discussions have taken place and Government officials have set out the overall approach at several stages in the process. There have been detailed discussions, most recently in December once the Bill was finally published. We are currently considering some of the issues raised by the Government of Gibraltar at that meeting, and there is a case for looking at further amendments as a result of the points that they raised. 
 We will discuss those issues at a later stage in the process. At this stage, there is not a case for amending the clause because it contains the fundamental, underlying principle in the Bill, which should be clear in primary legislation. There are other issues on which we are keen to take account of the views of the Government of Gibraltar and to ensure that proper consultation takes place over the next few months, as it has done previously.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the process as she sees it. Will she share the Government of Gibraltar's views with members of the Committee to allow us to understand any objections or suggestions that they may have and to interpret any amendments that are brought forward at a later stage?

Yvette Cooper: The Government of Gibraltar are keen to ensure that they and the House of Assembly have the chance to discuss some of the issues. A series of issues surrounds amendments and changes to electoral law to ensure that Gibraltar is part of the register and has the same rules on donations to political parties as other members of the region. There have been discussions with the Government of Gibraltar about the role that the House of Assembly can play in the process, which discussions should take place in Gibraltar and which should take place in Westminster. We are still looking at the detail because many of the discussions relate to the legal position, such as the issue of where laws apply. As I understand the Government of Gibraltar's position, they are content with the overall approach in the Bill and are understandably keen to ensure that they and the House of Assembly should have a continuing say as the detailed process of implementing the Bill takes place.
 The amendment is therefore unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would write to him on the relationship between Gibraltar and other parts of the European Union, and I will be happy to do so. As he will know, I discussed other Crown dependencies and British overseas territories in a previous letter, but I will be happy to write to him on the broader issues.

William Cash: Before the Minister finally sits down, will she be kind enough to tell us exactly what consultations on the Bill took place with those in Gibraltar to whom she has referred? She should bear it in mind that elections in Gibraltar are ''a defined domestic matter'' under its constitution. The mechanics, which she has described, are, despite the so-called rule of uniformity, matters that clearly go to the heart of the way in which the people of Gibraltar express their wishes in their elections.

Yvette Cooper: No one is pretending that the mechanics are simple. We are combining Gibraltar with an existing region of the UK. We have a series of laws and regulations, which do not currently apply in Gibraltar, constraining the way in which elections take place in the UK, such as the rules governing donations to political parties. It is for the House of Assembly, those who live in Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar to determine elections to the House of Assembly. If they are to be part of a combined region, however, the rules that apply to Gibraltar need to be the same as those that apply to the rest of the combined region in order to ensure that elections to the European Parliament are fair. That situation is not simple, and no one is pretending that it is. It will require some complex changes, which will need to apply to European parliamentary elections, but not other elections, in Gibraltar.
 The Bill's general approach has been set out to the Government of Gibraltar. As soon as it was possible to discuss its full details with them, we did so. As I have said, officials had detailed discussions in December on the Bill's provisions. In the light of those discussions, we are considering whether further amendments can be brought forward. We will discuss such amendments at a later stage, but they do not relate to the clause, which simply sets out the principle behind the Bill. I therefore oppose the amendment.

William Cash: I hear what the Minister says. We have had a thorough debate and appear to be making some progress because, irrespective of errors in the past and the lack of meaningful consultation, amendments may come forward and discussions are likely to take place. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has asked for a paper, which I have no doubt will help to illuminate the matter. Because the amendment was a probing amendment to get a better understanding before the Minister deals with other matters later in the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Electoral Commission recommendation as to the electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
clause 9, page 5, line 16, leave out 'the Governor and'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.7, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 16, leave out from 'Governor' to end of line 17 and insert 
 'Chief Minister and the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which it expects to seek registration under section 11(3)'.
 Amendment No.43, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 17, at end insert 
 'and the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar'.

William Cash: The amendment's importance is reflected by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome's rowing in with his own suggestions, which we can discuss when we move further forward.
 Basically, clause 9 provides for the Electoral Commission's role in recommending the electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar. It states that before 1 September 2003, the Electoral Commission is obliged to 
''consider which of the existing electoral regions . . . should be combined with Gibraltar''
 and 
''report its conclusions . . . to the Lord Chancellor.''
 Those conclusions must include the existing region with which Gibraltar should be combined. It goes on to say: 
''Before determining what recommendation to make'',
 which would occur after the Electoral Commission has made its consideration of the existing electoral regions with which Gibraltar might or might not be suitable to combine, 
''the Electoral Commission must consult''—
 in other words it is under an obligation— 
''the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.''
 That point was discussed on Second Reading. 
 There is a provision in the Bill—it appears in many Bills—that deals with the question of consultation. It means that due regard should be paid to the views of the person being consulted and that reasons should be given for the eventual decision. Having said that, that clause also states: 
''The report required by this section must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor.''
 In that context, I have repeatedly stated that there should also be proper debate. 
 On the role of the Governor, I have suggested in my amendment that the word ''Governor'' should be deleted. That is because—this relates to elections, citizens' rights and so forth—the clause provides for the Governor to be consulted about the constituency 
 with which Gibraltar should be combined. I cannot think of a good reason why the Governor should be interested, as an unelected, appointed representative of the United Kingdom Government, in being consulted about whom the people of Gibraltar should be combined with. It might seem on the surface that, as he is the Governor of Gibraltar, it would be nice to keep him informed, but we should consider the democratic implications. The unelected Lord Chancellor, the unelected Electoral Commission, and now the unelected Governor are all taking the prime role in determining whether the people of Gibraltar should be joined with one constituency or another. 
 It does not take much imagination to realise that that is not a democratic way of going about things. I hesitate to mention that we have already discussed the gamut of concerns about the manner in which the order-making powers are being made and so on. I have also said that I believe that the report presented by the Electoral Commission should be debated by Parliament on a substantive motion. It is not difficult to appreciate that the suggestion that some of the other people should be excluded but the Governor himself should be included is extremely unfortunate. 
 In amendment No. 43, I propose that the leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar should be consulted, too. In a similar situation in the United Kingdom, we might expect the Leader of the Opposition to be consulted, albeit on Privy Council terms, in relation to a major change in the electoral system. Therefore, there is a powerful case for consulting not only the Chief Minister but the leader of the Opposition. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome goes further in amendment No. 7. He wants the House of Assembly in Gibraltar to be added, 
''and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which it expects to seek registration under section 11(3).''
 Clearly, it is for the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument and I shall be interested to hear what he says. However, consultation with the Parliament, although it is not a huge Parliament, is quite difficult. Unfortunately, its Members are not elected as such. They are elected, but not to perform what I believe is the role of the Chief Minister and the leader of the Opposition in this context, who have the main responsibility—I put it no higher than that—for considering such matters. 
 I do not believe that the Governor, being unelected, should be at the centre of the consultation process about the sensitive matter of Gibraltar's democracy. Nobody would doubt for a minute that he would not be informed about what was going on, but it is unnecessary to provide for formal consultation in the Bill. I imagine that he takes his instructions from the Government anyway, because that is the basis on which governors and governors-general operate. To say that they take their instructions from the Government is probably going too far because they operate on behalf of the Queen, who takes advice from her Government, which often means the same thing. I was involved in the dispute when the Americans invaded Grenada and, without going into great detail, I was asked by a certain body of people to give a constitutional opinion on whether the Governor-
 General had exceeded his powers. The role can become controversial.

Andrew Rosindell: A governor is often appointed and is often a career civil servant from the Foreign Office, as is, I believe, the present Governor. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be absurd to expect, for example, a lord lieutenant or deputy lord lieutenant of a county to be consulted on parliamentary constituency boundaries? Surely, there is no justification for such consultation when elected representatives such as the leader of the Opposition are not consulted.

William Cash: My hon. Friend's point concerning the leader of the Opposition is right, but we shall get into deep water if we compare governors with deputy lieutenants. It is important to focus on the important aspect of the relationship between a governor and the Government in the United Kingdom and his constitutional role to understand the reasons why consultation with him under the Bill is unnecessary and could produce unsatisfactory results. The avenues exist and they can be left to existing constitutional arrangements. It is much more important that the Chief Minister and the leader of the Opposition should be consulted.

David Heath: I shall speak to amendment No. 7 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) who, unfortunately, has had to attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I know that he wanted to be here.
 The hon. Member for Stone raised an important issue in his amendment about the role of the Governor. It would be anomalous if the Governor were described as a simple functionary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that that would mean that the Government were consulting themselves. In this instance, the Governor has a wider constitutional role. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) has a point in saying that the Governor is effectively the Crown in the context of an overseas territory. The Governor carries out the functions of the Crown and, following the recommendation of the Secretary of State, is an appointment of the Crown. It is an odd Bill that requires the Executive to consult the Crown on matters of electoral law and there could be strange constitutional ramifications. It would be hard to envisage any context in which the Governor could express a personal view or a view that could be construed as controversial in any way in those circumstances without bringing into question large parts of the constitutional settlement. That would be a worrying turn of events in relation to what is a minor provision.

William Cash: Relying on such reports as I have come across and in the context of discussions and rows over the referendum when the Governor took a position, the consequences for his popularity were such that this might not be the most sensitive provision to put in the Bill.

David Heath: That may well be, but I return to my principal thesis. The proper people to speak for the
 people of Gibraltar are those elected by the people of Gibraltar, not those appointed by the Foreign Secretary. It is extraordinary that provision has not been made for consultation with the elected Members of the Gibraltar House of Assembly. The Chief Minister may well speak for the people of Gibraltar and consult with the Assembly. In the case of Mr. Caruana, I have no doubt that that would happen, but that is not the point. The legislation should require consultation with elected Members en bloc.
 It is a small House of Assembly elected on a rather strange franchise. I shall not bore the Committee with detail about how the number of seats is calculated, but it is not as one would expect for a normal legislative body. All sides of political opinion within Gibraltar should be heard and be seen to be heard, which is why I tabled the amendment. 
 I would go further. The House of Assembly currently constitutes representatives of three parties. As well as the main Opposition, the Liberal party, led by Dr. Joseph Garcia, holds two seats and I see no reason to exclude someone who holds two seats in the House of Assembly. A more basic question is relevant. Each of the political parties that might be expected to seek registration—this is the purport of my amendment—has a legitimate view on the operation of electoral arrangements. 
 In this country, political parties are always consulted about such matters. Indeed, huge consultation takes place not only over the Government's proposals for the political process, but the secondary proposals of the Electoral Commission that flow from them. Consultation is enshrined in several examples of legislation passed by the Government, so why should it be any different because it is Gibraltar? Why do we treat the people of Gibraltar as if they have no valid opinion of their own on these matters? 
 Identifying the electoral region for combination is a relatively minor matter in the context of the whole. At least anecdotal evidence suggests that the people of Gibraltar would prefer to be combined with the south-west region. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs expressed that view in its 11th report of the 2001–02 Session. A footnote states: 
''We note that during our visit to Gibraltar, a preference was expressed for the South West region.''
 That may be the outcome, but it is not for me, or the House to judge. It is up to the Electoral Commission to bring forward a recommendation. Preferences should be expressed first by the House of Assembly en bloc and, secondly, by the political parties. 
 I am not sure whether any properly formed political parties are not currently represented in the House of Assembly. I admit my ignorance, but it is logical and reasonable to assume that there may be. There may even be a pro-Spanish party, although it would be unlikely to engender many votes in the present state of affairs in Gibraltar. Even the views of such a party, if it exists, should be heard.

Andrew Rosindell: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. In fact, there are two Liberal parties, two Labour parties and one Social Democrat party—but no Conservative party—in Gibraltar. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all five of the political parties be consulted, or only those that are elected to represent Gibraltar in the House of Assembly?

David Heath: The process for registration of political parties laid out in the Bill indicates that all political parties that aspire to registration and to taking part in the process should be consulted. However, it is reasonable to assume that the weight attached to the views of the House of Assembly is likely to be greater than that attached to the views of a party that has not succeeded in attracting electoral support.
 I was not aware that there were two Liberal parties in Gibraltar. However, I have observed that in many European countries there are two Liberal parties, of which one is always in government. That seems to be an excellent state of affairs, along with there being no Conservative party, which also has its attractions. However, I will not pursue that matter further. 
 A basic principle of consultation is that it should take place with those who represent the people at whom the legislation is targeted. At present, only two individuals bear the responsibility for providing that input. The first of those is the Governor, who, for reasons that we have already discussed, may not be an appropriate person to consult. The other is the Chief Minister, whose views are certainly of importance. However, his views would be of even greater value if there were a requirement to consult with those who may not hold identical political views to his. 
 That is the purport of amendment No. 7, and I believe that the Government would be well advised to accept one or both of the amendments.

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to agree to the principles behind the amendments, but I will ask the hon. Member for Stone to withdraw the amendment. I will explain the reasons for that request.
 The Electoral Commission should consult widely, and has said that it intends to do so. It has a record of taking this sort of issue and the obligation to consult very seriously. I agree with Opposition Members that the Electoral Commission should consult Members of the House of Assembly, the political parties and the leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar, or, as the hon. Member for Romford suggested, the leaders of the several Opposition parties. I am also persuaded that to list the Governor in the Bill as one of only two named consultees is inappropriate, and gives the wrong balance to the Bill. 
 Many of those points were raised with us by the Government of Gibraltar when our officials met Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, and his colleagues just before Christmas to discuss a number of issues affecting the Bill. One of the issues they raised was the reference to who should be consulted under clause 9(2). The Chief Minister's view was that the Bill should refer to the Government of Gibraltar, and that it should not expressly refer to the Chief Minister or to 
 the Governor. We gave the Government of Gibraltar an undertaking that we would consider how their suggestions could be acted on. I am sympathetic to the points that they raised. 
 We intend to table further amendments on this matter at a later stage in the Bill. We said to the officials when we met them before Christmas that it would not be possible to prepare such amendments in time for the Committee stage, given the drafting requirements and the need for consideration. I am sympathetic to the principle of consulting Members of the House of Assembly and will also consider that issue. However, my one proviso is that we should not aim to compile an exhaustive list, because we will forget someone. The list in the Bill should be as narrow as possible, but we should make it clear during discussions in Committee and in the Chamber that we believe that political parties should be consulted, and that there should be a wide-ranging discussion. 
 I believe that the Electoral Commission will take that issue seriously and will want a wide-ranging consultation. There should be some reference in the Bill to provide the reassurance to the Government and people of Gibraltar that their views will be taken seriously, but we should avoid an exhaustive list. 
 Given those points and our intention to return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's passage, I ask the hon. Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way, at last, in which we are beginning to make progress on some of the points that we have made. It is important to put on record that the Governor is the representative of the British monarch, by whom he is appointed, and is responsible for matters directly relating to external affairs, defence, internal security and other matters not specifically defined as domestic matters in Gibraltar's constitution. I made the point that elections are defined as a domestic matter under our constitution, so we were moving into territory that would have caused a direct conflict between the Gibraltar constitution and arrangements that arise under the Bill.
 The Governor is the head of the Executive who administer Gibraltar, usually by acting on the advice of the Gibraltar Council. I am a bit mystified by the Gibraltar Council, on which I do not think that we need to elaborate, but I understand that it is not one of the most active bodies, although we may receive further information on that in due course. The Gibraltar Council includes the Chief Minister, who has been acknowledged in the Bill already, and the Governor's formal assent on behalf of the Crown is required for all legislation passed by the Gibraltar House of Assembly, although it is generally automatic. 
 That is all that I need to say. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon 
 had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Establishment of combined region

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in
clause 10, page 5, line 24, at end insert 
 'the name of which shall include the words ''and Gibraltar''.'.
 In certain respects, the amendment is important, but it is also interesting. I hope that Committee members at one point or another, through sheer willpower, will bring themselves to say something about at least one provision. However, I see from the fact that the Whip is shaking his head that they have not the slightest intention of doing so. We are keeping well to the programme resolution, and if I restricted my remarks, we would finish in about an hour and a half. However, I am certain that if we were to do that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome would agree, we would not have properly considered the Bill. 
 The amendment is important for many reasons. Let us imagine that we have a combined region that is called, for the sake of argument, the south-west. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome noted, that is the likely suggestion. We do not know for sure, and extensive discussions are needed with the Electoral Commission before we find out. I do not think that a huge battle is going on in the United Kingdom about the issue. There are preferences—both the west midlands and Northern Ireland have made suggestions—but those are matters that we are happy to leave to subsequent discussions and the consultation process. However, I most emphatically would not be happy, for reasons to which I have already referred, if the name of that region, as provided for in the Bill—I think that section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 specifies the names of the electoral regions—did not have the words ''and Gibraltar'' with the name of whichever region is to be conjoined with Gibraltar. 
 I shall put my point in temperate language, because the last thing that I want to do on a matter of such importance is to antagonise the Minister or make it personal. That is far from my thoughts and intentions, so I shall explain my point gently. The people of Gibraltar have been given an opportunity through the Denise Matthews case. They are good honest citizens who now have a chance to take part in elections in a given area. We do not have the faintest idea—or at least, I do not—for whom they will all eventually vote. There will be a candidate, but I do not know whether there will be a Gibraltarian candidate—I should think that that is unlikely. However, within the framework of the electoral system, when the election happens they will have absolutely as much right as you or I over what goes on in their constituencies. They will be citizens like we are, exercising that right. 
 Gibraltar is being added into the process in special circumstances, with many constitutional and practical implications. I shall emphasise the practical because constitutional matters, important though they can be in defining parameters, make no sense at all if they are not related to practicalities. I am not interested in constitutional theology, but in a proper, fair and balanced conclusion arising from discussions. That is what constitutional matters should be about, and in that sense this is essentially a constitutional issue, because the people of Gibraltar are real people who ought to be recognised. 
 To add the words ''and Gibraltar'' to the name will give an opportunity for those people's concerns and the matters relative to their daily lives to be reflected in the elections. Simply to throw them into the pot and then say, ''Right, you're now part of the south-west region'' would be geographical nonsense and rather extraordinary, although I concede that the situation is unusual.

Mark Hendrick: As this is such an important constitutional issue, would the hon. Gentleman want to call for a referendum across the whole United Kingdom on it?

William Cash: I am not going to bother to answer that. The important question is whether the Bill gives the people of Gibraltar a reasonable opportunity to have their daily practical lives and interactions reflected when the elections take place. I do not think that anyone with the slightest understanding of the situation could fail to appreciate that point. It is very simple, and concerns the day-to-day lives of those people.
 The measure is an important step for those people. Simply to be rolled into a region called the south-west, the west midlands or whatever it might be would make them appear completely unrecognised—I do not like to use the word insulting—and would emphasise my point about what the Government have done. I simply do not agree with their reasons, although I suspect that I know who was behind what they did, which might have had a rather Hispanic connection. We shall see in due course. I may be entirely wrong, but if that were the case, I certainly would not agree with what was done on that and many other related issues. 
 My point is important. I shall be interested to see how the Minister reacts to it. I do not think that adding ''and Gibraltar'' would be difficult, and it would not only give enormous satisfaction to the people of Gibraltar but would recognise the territoriality of the issue and at the same give an enormous amount of pleasure and satisfaction to people in this country who feel strongly that Gibraltar should be supported.

David Heath: I do not believe that any long, complicated arguments need to be made in support of the amendment. It reflects amendments that I attempted to make to part 1 of the Bill, which the Minister said were premature at that point. I understand her saying that at the time, but such amendments cannot be premature now.
 Recognising the existence of Gibraltar in the context of a combined region will be a beneficial 
 move. The hon. Member for Stone said that there was not overwhelming competition between the electoral regions to determine which should be chosen for the purpose by the Electoral Commission and recommended to the House, but on Second Reading there appeared to be a spirited application on behalf of Northern Ireland, which is the one area that is excluded by the Bill, and I believe that there were comments from a sedentary position about Scotland as well. 
 It might be helpful if the Minister would give the reasons for the Government's conclusion that neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland would be appropriate regions for the incorporation of Gibraltar. I can readily see why in the case of Northern Ireland, but I find it slightly more difficult to understand why Scotland could not be considered. Perhaps she would be kind enough to put on the record the Government's reasoning in this instance.

Andrew Rosindell: You will know of my interest in the subject of Gibraltar, Mr. Cook—indeed, it was only a year ago that you and I were there—and you will know the strength of feeling among the British people on the Rock. I hope that hon. Members will try to understand why the people of Gibraltar are so passionate about the Bill.
 They are British as we are British. They feel pride in their heritage, history and culture, as our constituents and we do. Yet despite joining the European Union—the European Economic Community, as it was in the early 1970s—at the same time and under the same accession treaty as the United Kingdom, they have been denied the right to speak on issues that affect them. I ask all Members to consider whether they would tolerate their constituents' being denied the democratic right to vote and speak on issues that affect them in the European Parliament or in this place. 
 I hope that there will be a greater understanding of the passion that is felt among Gibraltarians. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone referred to the recent referendum in Gibraltar. I was there at the time. For the record, I wish to declare an interest, having visited Gibraltar on several occasions as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar. 
 You will know, Mr. Cook, how determined the people of Gibraltar are to retain their Britishness and their sense of belonging to the United Kingdom. It is good news that at long last the Bill has come before Parliament. Very shortly, the people of Gibraltar will have a vote in European Parliament elections, at least. However, the Minister will acknowledge that the Government have not sought to allow that. It has been forced upon the Government. I do not believe for one moment that the Government would be introducing the Bill had the matter not been resolved by law. 
 Shamefully, Labour and Conservative Governments have ignored the people of Gibraltar for all this time. It is good news that the Bill is before the House, and the people of Gibraltar will get a vote in European elections. It would add insult to injury if the name of Gibraltar were excluded from the name of the region in which the Rock is to be included. I hope 
 that the Minister will consider that vital point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. It is very insulting to Gibraltarians that they are being given the vote reluctantly and the name of Gibraltar is not acknowledged in the name of the region. 
 Of course, Gibraltar is not geographically part of any region in the UK. It is not part of the south-west, London, or Northern Ireland. It is a peninsula attached to Spain. However, it is British, and will be included in European elections in the UK. How can it not be recognised in the name of whichever constituency it may be a part? The name must surely be given prominence and recognition in the Bill. If it is not, the people of Gibraltar will rightly feel hurt. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the matter. 
 I know that the Government are reluctant about the Bill, but if they are going to give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the elections, let them do that with a good heart. I ask the Government to do it as if they really want to, even though deep down they perhaps did not want to do it in the first place. They should give Gibraltar the recognition the people of the Rock deserve by including the name of Gibraltar in the name of the region that it is included within.

Yvette Cooper: I understand that there is strong feeling among some that the amendment should be passed. However, I ask that it should be resisted. The clause enables the Lord Chancellor to make an order to create the region following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. The amendment would provide that the name of the combined region should include Gibraltar. I know that some hon. Members feel strongly that that should be the case, but we believe that the amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to the achievement of the aims of the Bill.
 The creation of the combined region and the requirement under clause 13 for there to be a register in the Gibraltar area for those eligible to vote in the European Parliament elections will ensure that the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised. Eligibility will be defined as it is in the United Kingdom. Clause 15(1) states clearly that a person is entitled to be registered in the Gibraltar register if on the relevant day he is resident in Gibraltar. 
 Adding Gibraltar to the title of the region will serve no further purpose as far as the franchise is concerned. It would not change the reality. In addition, schedule 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 lists the electoral regions of England and the areas that comprise those regions. They are defined geographically and if Gibraltar is to be combined with an English region for the purposes of the franchise, it will be added to the list of areas once the decision has been reached as to which region it should be combined with. If it is to be combined with Wales, there will need to be a provision that will include Gibraltar within the area of that region. That and the provisions for the franchise that I have already mentioned will make it clear that those who are eligible to vote and resident in Gibraltar will be enfranchised to vote in the elections. Gibraltar will be designated geographically as an area forming part of the chosen 
 region. Adding Gibraltar to the title will therefore add nothing to the reality of the franchise. 
 I understand that it seems preferable to Gibraltar to have its name in the title of the electoral region and I understand why some people feel strongly about that. We have to recognise that those in other parts of the region involved could see including Gibraltar in the title as disproportionate, given the size of the electorate in Gibraltar relative to the size of the electorate in some of the other geographical areas that may be included in the combined region. For example, the Isle of Wight has an electorate of 104,000 people, whereas Gibraltar has in the region of 20,000 voters.

Andrew Rosindell: I understand the Minister's point, but surely she would accept that the Isle of Wight is very clearly part of the UK, whereas Gibraltar is not, although it would like to be. There is a clear difference between talking about an island off the shores of the UK, which is part of the UK and therefore already part of a recognised region, and Gibraltar, which is not geographically or politically part of any recognised region. Gibraltar is an overseas territory in its own right and a member of the European Union in its own right, via the accession treaty of the UK. If we give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote and include them as part of an electoral region, there can be no question but that the name of that electoral region should reflect the fact that Gibraltar is included in it.

Yvette Cooper: Of course, Gibraltar is in a very different situation from the Isle of Wight. Nevertheless it is right to consider the size of the electorate. As I said, Gibraltar has in the region of 20,000 voters. Although electors in the combined region will recognise that it is right that Gibraltar's interests and concerns be taken into account, it is important to understand that they will be concerned if candidates or the media pay a disproportionate amount of attention to those interests. Gibraltar will be one part of the region and we must consider its size relative to the size of the region: it has 20,000 voters, whereas an average region has 3.7 million voters. Of course, it is right that people should be aware that Gibraltar is part of their region and that can be addressed through normal publicity and documentation in an election campaign, without any risk of skewing the political debate and focusing on one part of the region, rather than addressing all of the region.
 The Bill makes it clear that Gibraltar will become part of a combined region and that people in Gibraltar should be able to vote in the European Parliament elections; we simply have to ensure that there are free and fair elections on the same basis for all voters covered as part of the system. The Bill does ensure that, although I understand that some people will take a different view. Those are the reasons why we have come to our decision on the name of the region.

Andrew Rosindell: If the Minister refuses to include Gibraltar in the name of the region overall, will she consider including Gibraltar within Gibraltar? That would mean that election publicity in Gibraltar made
 it clear that it was, say, ''London and Gibraltar''. That name would be used only on the Rock, for those purposes, and not in the rest of the region.

Yvette Cooper: Certainly literature distributed in Gibraltar would make it clear that Gibraltar was part of the region. As I have said, it is possible to ensure that publicity and documentation provided during an election campaign make clear the different component parts of the region. Therefore, I shall look further at the hon. Gentleman's points, while maintaining that the overall title of the region must remain as in the Bill.

David Heath: I just want to jog the Minister's memory. I wondered whether she would have an opportunity to say why not Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Yvette Cooper: I forgot that the hon. Gentleman had raised that point. We discussed this matter on Second Reading. The reason is primarily one of logistics—getting all the secondary legislation in place in time for the 2004 elections. Different kinds of secondary legislation will have to be drawn up if Scotland or Northern Ireland is involved, because of the different ways in which some of the details of electoral law apply in those two regions. Therefore, it would not be possible to start drawing up the programme of secondary legislation until the Electoral Commission had decided which region Gibraltar was to go into. If we confine the regions available to the Electoral Commission to choose from to England and Wales, the process of drafting the secondary legislation required can begin in advance of it taking that final decision, because, no matter which region we are talking about, the provisions are likely to be broadly the same. Therefore, it is a practical consideration, which is determined simply by the need to put secondary legislation in place in time for the 2004 elections.

William Cash: I have not heard such a poor defence of an argument for a long time. It was driven by bureaucratic claptrap relating to names, sizes and proportionality, combined with a concern that, by including the words ''and Gibraltar'', we would perhaps offend Spain's sensitivities. I suspect that that has a great deal to do with not including the words that I have suggested.
 One has only to look at the rest of the United Kingdom, where it is clear that highly recognisable regions have constituencies described by reference to two places. Some members of the Committee may have such constituencies. I now represent the constituency of Stone, but there was a time when it was Stafford and Stone, because that part of the geographical area was considered sufficiently important historically and in terms of community and territory. That is why so many constituencies have double names. I believe that some in Scotland even have three names. That is much better from the point of view of the people who live there, because it gives them a sense of contiguity with the electoral process and a sense of identity. Therefore, I entirely repudiate the Minister's arguments. 
 With respect to regionality, I have seen maps—I am not saying that they are official, although they have semi-official status—on which parts of Normandy are incorporated for the purposes of European electoral and development regions into the south-east of England. We know the arguments about regionality with respect to Northern Ireland and Ireland, and that raises a pivotal question with respect to relations between the north and south of Ireland. 
 The problem is partly that the relationship between name and place does not recognise distance. Therefore, the fact that Gibraltar would be added in to, say, the south-west is without prejudice to the fact that it could easily be with, say, Northern Ireland or Scotland. However, the significance is that Gibraltar is composed of people who are citizens and who have an absolute right to be recognised as an identifiable part of whatever combined region is created. 
 Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom because it is not integrated into it. There are jurisdictional consequences and implications for the executive, judicial and legislative areas. Gibraltar is not jurisdictionally part of the United Kingdom for those or any other purpose. Clause 8 recognises that it will be combined with another region, not integrated into or included in it. The word ''combined'' has been carefully selected to ensure that the language of integration is avoided. We must bear that important point in mind. The Bill completely ignores Gibraltar's constitutional autonomy and jurisdictional separateness and treats it for executive, judicial and legislative purposes as an integrated part of the United Kingdom. I trust that the Minister will take that on board as the discussion continues, because there will be further stages and the Bill will go to the House of Lords. 
 Gibraltar's legislature is given no role in the legislative process. Its Executive is treated like a United Kingdom local council, as we see in clauses 19 and 21. The competence and jurisdiction of its judiciary is to be excluded. The provisions, therefore, are intrinsically colonial in nature and mentality and, by excluding Gibraltar from the name of the combined region, the Bill effectively puts the seal on that. 
 Both the people and the territory, not just the people, should be enfranchised. That is the overriding principle for Gibraltar. If we are to enfranchise the territory, we must accommodate its legal and constitutional status and institutions. If we do not do so, has Parliament really enfranchised the territory or merely included its people in a United Kingdom constituency? If the latter is the case, the Government will have been driven, against their will, as with the previous Government through the Denise Matthews case, to recognise a principle laid down by the European Convention. However, for reasons that I have given, they do so de minimis and without proper consultation and do not recognise what amendment No. 46, by including the words ''and Gibraltar'', would demonstrate. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
clause 10, page 5, line 28, after 'Commission', insert 
 'who shall consult the Boundary Committee of their Commission and/or the Boundary Commissions'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 52, in 
clause 11, page 6, line 19, after 'Commission', insert 
 'who shall consult the Boundary Committee of their Commission and/or the Boundary Commissions'.
 Amendment No. 61, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 13, after 'Commission', insert 
 'who shall consult the Boundary Committee of their Commission and/or the Boundary Commissions'.
 I remind hon. Members that we have already touched on the issues in the amendments but have not discussed them specifically, so I anticipate and will insist on a tight debate.

William Cash: I entirely endorse your comments, Mr. Cook, and will do my best to comply. We have discussed the principle and it is important for the Minister to be given the opportunity to reply.
 I simply want to put on the record that the amendments relate to clauses 10, 11 and 16. In each case, the object of the exercise is to ensure that the Electoral Commission has an obligation to consult in the context in which I used the word earlier, but also, as a matter of principle, properly to consult on matters that arise in the context of those clauses. That is a slightly different state of affairs from that which we discussed previously in that we were discussing the Lord Chancellor's order-making powers. We are now dealing with the impact on Gibraltar and the different places in the combined region. There is a list in section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, so we know what it comprises and that questions relating to Northern Ireland and Scotland and so on need to be taken into account. The amendment is a spur to the Electoral Commission so that we can be sure that the whole process is dealt with as comprehensively as possible.

Yvette Cooper: Many of the same arguments apply to the amendment as to the earlier groups of amendments that we discussed, and the same issues apply to Gibraltar as to making a decision about the number of MEPs.
 First, nothing in the Bill prevents the Electoral Commission from consulting the boundary committees and commissions should it so choose. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it is not clear what relevance the considerations of the boundary commissions or committees will have in the choice of which region Gibraltar should be included with. The boundary commissions for each country of the UK make decisions only about Westminster parliamentary boundaries and that has no relation to parliamentary regional boundaries, so it is not clear how their considerations would apply to the decision on which region Gibraltar should be combined with. The boundary committees will not consider anything that is likely to have an impact on the boundaries of the regions and, therefore, on which region Gibraltar should be part of during the next couple of years. As I set out in the earlier discussion, recommendations to change county boundaries can be made only if there is express instruction from the Secretary of State. There is no such instruction to recommend changes to those county boundaries so that is not under consideration and it is not likely to change before the 2004 elections.

William Cash: The Minister has a rather engaging habit of answering some questions by simply stating the position, rather than giving a reason for her argument. The fact that the Secretary of State has the role of issuing instructions with regard to county regions does not answer the question whether there are issues relating to the role of a boundary commission or committee with respect to the area of that county and its possible impact on others. She seems to be saying that there is no mechanism, other than through local government and with respect to normal general elections, to allow the boundary commissions to be involved.

Yvette Cooper: I am saying that the Electoral Commission can consult the boundary commissions and committees if it chooses to, but it is not appropriate to include in the Bill that it must, because it is not clear that there is anything that the boundary commissions or committees are currently considering that is relevant to the Electoral Commission's decision. The boundaries of the regions are not about to change. They are clear. They are not currently being considered by the boundary committees or the boundary commissions. Indeed the boundary commissions would never look at anything that was likely to impact on the boundaries of the European parliamentary region, because they just look at the Westminster parliamentary boundaries.
 I would be happy to accept the amendment if the boundary commissions were considering something that was fundamental to the decision about which region Gibraltar should be combined with, but they are not doing anything at the moment that is central or even relevant to that decision. If the Electoral Commission takes a different view or if the boundary commissions or committees themselves take a different view it will be open for them to be consulted as part of this process. That is right. 
 However, I do not see the need to put them in the Bill as consultees when I have not heard any argument why they would add something significant and substantial in the next period, given that the decision about which region Gibraltar has to be combined with has to be taken in time for the 2004 elections. 
 That is another significant issue. Even if the boundary committees were considering changes to county boundaries that would have a knock-on effect on the regional boundaries, the Electoral Commission would still have to take its decision at one point. It could not simply anticipate what might happen in the future if decisions have not been taken. For those reasons we should reject the amendments. I completely accept that consultation on which region Gibraltar should be combined with should be as wide as possible. The Electoral Commission would accept that too. It would take its responsibilities very seriously. However, I do not see the need to add the reference to the boundary commissions or committees to the Bill.

William Cash: In the light of those remarks and in the hope and belief that the Minister's views will be communicated to the Electoral Commission, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Power to make consequential etc provision

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
clause 11, page 5, line 34, at end insert 
 '; provided that no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State has consulted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar as to what matters may be legislated in the House of Assembly in Gibraltar and what matters may be legislated in Parliament and thereafter such matters as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe to be legislated in the House of Assembly may be so legislated.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 55, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 44, after 'Commission', insert 
 'and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar'.
 Amendment No. 59, in 
clause 16, page 8, line 43, at end insert— 
 'provided that no such regulation shall be made until the Secretary of State has consulted in accordance with section 11(1) and it has been determined in which legislature which matters are to be legislated'.
 Amendment No. 62, in 
clause 17, page 9, line 16, after 'section 16', insert 
 '; provided that no such regulation shall be made until the Secretary of State has consulted in accordance with section 11(1) and it has been determined in which legislature which matters are to be legislated.'.

William Cash: We had a wide-ranging discussion about the relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom and the Governor, and the constitutional implications of that, but we did not consider what lies behind it, which is the manner in which the order that is made by the Lord Chancellor will impact on the relative functions of the House of Assembly as compared with this House. The point that I made
 about the constitutional status of Gibraltar is not just theological; it is also about the manner in which legislation is passed by reference to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. On the last provision but one, I made it clear that there are serious concerns, which we express and which are felt in Gibraltar itself, about the intrinsically colonial nature and mentality that lie behind the measures. This amendment is also directed at that point.
 As I said, it is not only the people who are being enfranchised; the principle of overriding importance for Gibraltar is that both the people and the territory are enfranchised. If one enfranchises the territory, one must inevitably accommodate its legal and constitutional status and institutions. Otherwise, one is simply left with tagging on the people. That is not an intrinsic part of a proper constitutional process, but a de minimis operation that does not reflect the wishes of the people in terms of their legislative decision making. After all, the people who are elected to the House of Assembly in Gibraltar are elected as representatives of the people of Gibraltar. 
 The albeit small population of Gibraltar has created the most enormous stir about what has been going on in that part of Europe. They have resolutely refused to accept being part of Spain. The fact that there happen to be only a few of them, as with so many rebellions, does not mean that they cannot make a disproportionately large impact on the extent to which the democratic process moves forward. I can think of one or two personal examples, but I can also think of some of the problems coming up for the Government over the war in Iraq. 
 It would be a great mistake to imagine that, just because the people of Gibraltar are not numerous, they could not and have not demonstrated that they can punch above their weight. They have done extremely well, and I pay tribute to the Chief Minister, Mr. Caruana, for the manner in which he has conducted the defence of his people's interests. That is a remarkable illustration of my point. 
 All comes down to what happens when the legislation is considered. I was glad to hear the Minister say that, as we proceed, opportunities may arise for further amendments and for reconsidering the balance between what should be determined in the House of Assembly and what in the UK Parliament. I have already argued that under the constitution order now in force in Gibraltar, elections are an internal domestic matter. We debated that earlier and no controversy remains: it is a fact. The question of what should be legislated in the House of Assembly and what in this Parliament goes to the heart of the constitutional balance between the UK and Gibraltar. 
 It is unexceptionable that when the order-making power is processed, a proper degree of consultation—the amendment refers to the Secretary of State, but the Lord Chancellor may be more likely in the current circumstances—must take place. No order should be made by the Lord Chancellor until he has 
''consulted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar as to what matters may be legislated in the House of Assembly in Gibraltar and what matters may be legislated in this Parliament and thereafter''—
 this is important—such matters as the Lord Chancellor 
''may by order prescribe to be legislated in the House of Assembly may be so legislated.''
 Without the amendment, consultation might take place, but someone could argue that it was ultra vires because the UK Parliament introduced the Bill, overriding the proper functions of Gibraltar. It would not then be open to the House of Assembly to make the legislative arrangements that flowed from the order—and we want to avoid that. 
 Amendment No. 55, which relates to clause 12, would include the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in consultation with the Electoral Commission. Under clause 11, the Lord Chancellor has extraordinarily wide powers: he may 
''by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient''—
 one cannot go much further than that— 
''in consequence of, or in connection with, the inclusion of Gibraltar in an electoral region for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections.''
 The width of those powers and the uncertainty about whether the House of Assembly would be allowed to legislate—as a territory with a right to make its own electoral law under its own constitutional arrangements, I believe that it should—make it necessary to establish where the line will be drawn between this House and the House of Assembly. 
 Amendment No. 59 relates to clause 16 and deals with regulations under sections 13 to 15, which make a stack of provisions for electoral registration and voting in Gibraltar. That goes to the heart of the issues that I have raised about where the line should be drawn. 
 The Lord Chancellor's list of regulations in clause 16(1) run the gamut of electoral law. If Gibraltar is to be part of a combined region, I understand the Minister's point about the necessity of there being a degree of compatibility with our electoral law; it would be extraordinary if that were not the case. We do not have the time, nor is it necessary, to go into detail about every permutation that could arise, but the people of Gibraltar, the Chief Minister and those who are familiar with their constitutional arrangements know where the line can be drawn with regard to the law. Therefore, I take the Minister's word that she will guarantee that any amendments that may be proposed to strike a balance between what will properly be dealt with in Gibraltar and what will be dealt with in the UK Parliament will be debated before the Bill completes its passage through this House, certainly on Report, as the final decision on the Bill should not be left to the House of Lords, which is an unelected body. The matter should be resolved in the spirit of proper consultation between Government and Opposition Front Benches. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome may care to comment on that. There is time to deal with the matter and we should be given the opportunity to 
 consider and assess the amendments on the Floor of the House of Commons, not be bounced along on Lords amendments.

David Heath: I shall be brief as time is short. It is important that there is clarity in the legal and constitutional arrangements between the United Kingdom Parliament as a legislative body and the Gibraltar House of Assembly, which has some, but not all, the characteristics of a devolved legislation. Were it to be part of the United Kingdom devolved administration we would have a clearer idea what powers were exercised and at what level. If we were in doubt we could call in the Advocate-General to advise us. It would give substance to Advocate-General's Question Time, which it sometimes lacks. In the case of Gibraltar we have no such apparatus.
 It is therefore important that before we legislate on the matter we ensure that the measure we finally approve has no possibility of being challenged as ultra vires, either in respect of the powers that we arrogate to this legislature or those maintained by the House of 
 Assembly and the courts in Gibraltar. There is an element of doubt, and it would be sensible if the Minister could state with greater clarity where the dividing lines lie.

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Member for Stone explained, the amendments relate to the use of the powers in part 2, especially in clauses 11 and 16, to make secondary legislation. The Bill provides only the basic framework for the enfranchisement of Gibraltar: it sets out the creation of the combined region, the electoral register for Gibraltar, and the franchise. It is right that those central, important elements should be in the primary legislation. In practice, however, there is a range of existing electoral law that currently applies to the whole of the UK and other areas in the combined region that need to be applied in Gibraltar too, modified or adapted as necessary.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.